- Joined
- Jul 26, 2009
- Messages
- 12,177
- Reaction score
- 7,551
- Location
- Ft. Campbell, KY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Only douchebags look for loopholes and only idiots think they won't get caught when they do it.
I've danced with you on these issues thousands of times, it's just easier to point out that you are wrong.
I'm not wasting hours of time for an argument you are going to dismiss by sheer disagreement. My sources are well known, and have been presented numerous times.Ok Mr. Head-in-the-sand
I'm not wasting hours of time for an argument you are going to dismiss by sheer disagreement. My sources are well known, and have been presented numerous times.
Why should felons not be allowed to own and carry firearms? Is there something in the second amendment I'm missing that doesn't protect their right to bear arms? Is one of us seeing imaginary text again?
Never? Really? To what lengths are you willing to go?At some point we get to sillyville. I think we did that with the last gun bill. I am all for all responsible Americans being encouraged to carry. What I am not for is felons etc being allowed to. As I understand it the RW is all for that now.
By the way, they will never get my firearms, but I dont think we should be silly about it. We are getting there.
I posted the parts of the OP that I am talking about. One of them was about people who could not pass the background check being able to buy firearms for their buisness. Again, are you really for arming violent felons?
Total red herring moot points.
I know in Florida if you have a domestic restraining order you must surrender your weapons and on many other restraining orders you must as well.
Felons buying guns, already illegal in most of the country.
Legislating from the oval office is bad form and in this case there was no reason for it. None.
I posted the parts of the OP that I am talking about. One of them was about people who could not pass the background check being able to buy firearms for their buisness. Again, are you really for arming violent felons?
From the OP.
The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.
Read more: Administration announces new gun control measures, targets military surplus imports | Fox News
The only concession I am willing to make at this moment in time is felon in possession and only for violent crimes. The only reason is because the justice system is so overloaded with people spending more time for nonviolent felonies that violent offenders get released before they should be. Violent offenses should always involve the most time served, but because of idiotic criminal statutes they for the most part serve the least time and re offend. Until that's addressed I'm "okay" with that minor violation, but only with the caviotte that in the meantime the justice system gets tweaked to get violent offenders off the streets so that the prohibition can be stricken ASAP.Felons have just as much right to bear arms as I do. As for the background check business, again, look at the amendment. I'm getting a bit tired of people reading imaginary text in the constitution.
What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?Wrong. There are Garands that are in South Korea that were supposed to be returned to the US and sold to the public through the CMP and Obama decided to step in the way of that.
$1000. What's the big deal?Do you have any idea what a Garand is?
Sad part is you think our 2A rights are not under attack. You see this executive order as basically nothing that impacts gun owners here in the US.What's wrong about my statement then? Do you own this weapon already? Are you normally allowed to buy South Korean garands? If not, then how is he after your guns?
$1000. What's the big deal?
The sad part is you'll probably think I'm serious. Gun supporters usually don't pick up subtleties where guns are concerned.
So in other words, you cannot defend your position so you resort to empty rhetoric. I can't say I'm surprised.Sad part is you think our 2A rights are not under attack. You see this executive order as basically nothing that impacts gun owners here in the US.
I imagine you will think that all the way past the point where perhaps a hand gun ban or anothere AWB.
Your problem is, you refuse to take any answer as "defending ones position".So in other words, you cannot defend your position so you resort to empty rhetoric. I can't say I'm surprised.
I love how the gun nuts love to talk about the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" but they fight against all regulation....without realizing or conveniently forgetting that the 2nd amendment also talks about the "militia" being "WELL REGULATED".
Gramatically, the primary clause is the second clause. "Well regulated militia" is the subordinate clause, meaning it's simply a justification. Besides, "well regulated" did not mean "controlled" it meant "in working order" which simply meant the militia was to drill, maintain their own weapons, and respond to a "call to muster". But of course, the tripe you so conveniently repeated has been disproven multiple times.I love how the gun nuts love to talk about the 2nd amendment right to "keep and bear arms" but they fight against all regulation....without realizing or conveniently forgetting that the 2nd amendment also talks about the "militia" being "WELL REGULATED".
:lol:
I think it speaks to the ridiculousness of the gun culture that the following two orders are "going after your guns"...guns you don't even have, and I believe are not even allowed normally to buy.
Your source.
Such ridiculous fanaticism to an inanimate object.
I asked a question. You have yet to attempt to answer it. It's a simple question. I'll post it again for you:Your problem is, you refuse to take any answer as "defending ones position".
Yes, I did. I responded directly. This would be the part where you counter my statement, but you did not, you resorted to empty rhetoric.You have yet to counter my arguement
I most certainly did. I asked how he was after your guns, if this executive order did not have anything to do with your guns.or bring a valid point to the exec order making it more understandable.
Says the person who still has not answered my simple question. *shrug*You are a classic one sided debater that can not make an arguement, except to go after other peoples posts with an attempt to diminish them with some pseudo intellectual comments.
Not to me, and I didn't read any other post in this thread. Could you direct me to where you addressed my question? I'll happily go back and read it.I defended my position within the first page.
So he's not going after YOUR guns. Correct?He isn't taking away any guns that are already here, he is banning further importation.
So, then he didn't ban the gun, only the importation, correct? So he's not going after YOUR guns. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.There are armories here where you can still walk in and buy them, one of them is in Anniston Alabama.
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.Put this together with a bill proposed to increase the tax on ammunition and handguns and you have some clues to what will in effect become a drying up of firearms and the ability to use them in this country. California is proposing licensing to purchase ammunition and a background check each time you buy and a ban on internet sales of ammunition. Next will be banning importation of ammunition followed by taxing domestic ammunition and domestic firearm manufacturers out of business. This is why we oppose incremental gun control. While none of these laws individually remove the 2nd amendment, collectively they have the same effect.
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.
:lol:And Iam sure alot of Jews thought the same thing in 1935.
Empty and irrelevant? You've got to be kidding, The Weimar republic had a gun ban prior to the Nazi SS because of conditions of surrender from WWI, HOWEVER, the gun restrictions were lessened.............but only for people who were higher ups in the party, that excluded Jewish, gypsies, transigents, homosexuals, and non-whites not on board with the government direction. If anything the gun controls were circumvented ONLY on behalf of the people that were meant to be disarmed in the first place.:lol:
More empty and irrelevant rhetoric. It truly is all you have, isn't it? I asked you the question again, told you I'd be willing to go back and read if you simply pointed me to the post where you claimed to have answered it. But instead of debating, you instead to bring up a situation from nearly 80 years ago which is completely unrelated to this one, an issue which was not about gun control but instituting prejudice.
As I said before, I can't say I'm surprised.
Yes, Nazi discrimination against Jews is irrelevant to the conversation about these two executive orders. I do not see how this can be a point of contention.Empty and irrelevant?
Right. It was prejudice/institutionalized discrimination, not gun control. I already said that.You've got to be kidding, The Weimar republic had a gun ban prior to the Nazi SS because of conditions of surrender from WWI, HOWEVER, the gun restrictions were lessened.............but only for people who were higher ups in the party, that excluded Jewish, gypsies, transigents, homosexuals, and non-whites not on board with the government direction.
His point is ridiculous, as is yours. You're comparing institutionalized discrimination against gun control. They are completely separate issues. Comparing these two executive orders against discrimination is absurd.His point is spot on, the Jewish people weren't rounded up immediately, they were disarmed, propogated against, and rounded up. Genocide would be the next step.
So he's not going after YOUR guns. Correct?
So, then he didn't ban the gun, only the importation, correct? So he's not going after YOUR guns. That's kind of the point I'm getting at.
This thread is a ridiculous overreaction by the thread starter.
I'm sorry, slippery slope arguments hold no weight with me. It's ridiculous to oppose one situation because of a fear of a future situation which may never come to pass.
To be clear, I do appreciate your response, it was very reasonable. I just do not agree with the idea this is anyone going after your guns because of a fear of something which may never happen in the future. Taking a position against a situation because of what may happen in the future is never a good argument.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?